I wonder how many people "recoil" at [Andrew] Sullivan's sanctimonious pronouncements about "Christianists." He's become so devoted to that word of his. Does he not notice how snide and hostile it feels even to people who are not fundamentalists?

Glenn was pointing out that you find snideness and hostility in the word "Christianist," but obviously not in the word "Islamist." It's the double standard, stupid.

Glenn was pointing out that you find snideness and hostility in the word "Christianist," but obviously not in the word "Islamist." It's the double standard, stupid.

Oh my God, what is your level of reading comprehension? Ann has already explained this issue one bizillion times. She is not against the use of "Christianist" in all contexts, just when overbroadly and wrongly used--just as she would be when using "Islamist" to discuss Muslim or Islamic matters that have nothing to do with political ideology.

She is being very precise in her language. And you are either being dense or deliberately provoking. Either way--shameful display.

Regarding "christianist == islamist", this is a clueless assertion. Islamist is a term common in current vernacular. The word was created to provide a descriptive, accurate alternative in order to avoid describing muslims as extremists. Christianist is a word made up by anti-christian bigots to play off the word Islamist, used in an attempt to portray christians as extremists. In other words, precisely the opposite linguistic purpose.

I hope that helps, Doyle, although knowing you from your comments, I'm not optimistic.

DOYLE:"Glenn was pointing out that you find snideness and hostility in the word "Christianist," but obviously not in the word "Islamist." It's the double standard, stupid. 'No..it's the moral equivalence of Christians and Islamists on your part stupid

There is a qualitative difference in how Islam and Christianity approach the matter of the state (i.e. the government). Christianity recognizes that there is a government seperate from God (i.e. 'Render unto Caesar...') while Islam sees any government as ultimately subservient to God, Mohammed and his organization on the earth.

Now, we've seen at times both the blurring of the church/state line by some Christians and the acceptance of non-religious civil authority by some muslims, but fundamentally this difference in philosophy is spelled out in scripture. Hence I'm not sure the term 'Christianist' makes any sense.

Hmmm, not terribly surprising, sadly. Although the utility of the Post's "Global Barometer" is utterly slight, the usual readership of the paper will use it as fuel for their everlasting facile question, "why do they hate us," and, before the next breath passes, answer themselves, "George W. Bush, the neocons and the Christianists..."

More importantly, the long-term prospects of the West are rapidly dimming due to demographics, loss of faith and failure of will. None of these afflict the Islamic middle-east; and as the "international community" passively and impotently lets Iran fulfill Allah's vision by building nuclear then thermonuclear devices; such a device or two will intentionally slip unnoticed into the hands of terrorists and a major Western city or two, such as New York and Washington, will be no longer, Allah willing, PBUH.

The question that will not go away will be asked yet again, do we have the will to defend ourselves by doing that which is necessary to defeat militant Islamic fascists and the Islamists?

For currently we clearly do not; the anti-West Left, the gullible and faint of heart, the appeasers cross-dressing as "realists," and the Islamists and their allies are in ascendancy and the West is, unsurprisingly, in decline.

That the Post's "Global Barometer" tracks this daily will not change or influence those events.

In other words, Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism is on the rise because the U.S. has been insufficiently belligerent in the Middle East.

Prove to me that it is on the rise other than quoting MSM copy that says it is. I can't think of a time where they have not be extreme or when they have not been anti-American. They hated us before Sept 11 and they will probably always hate us.

I looked at both the underlying stories and the non-explanation about the non-methodology. I then tried looking at Israel and their stories and could not fathom why ceasefire with Fatah would drive Israel ratings down and saber rattling with Hizbollah would also drive Israel ratings down.

"In other words, Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism is on the rise because the U.S. has been insufficiently belligerent in the Middle East."

Thoughtful people understand Islamic extremism is a threat while anti-Americanism is an unfortunate sentiment. No nation rightfully organizes its foreign and security policies around how other nations and peoples feel about them; they organize their foreign and security policies around their interests and potential threats.

Thoughtful people also understand that American "belligerence" in the middle-east had absolutely nothing to do with the militant Islamic fascists attacks on 9/11; thoughtful people also understand nations defeat their enemies by increasing their "belligerence" to the point the enemy's capacity or will to wage war against you is diminished to the point it is no longer a threat.

In other words, thoughtful people know we cannot win the war against militant Islamic fascism without going on the offensive, no matter what concerns the overly emotional have over "anti-Americanism."

Thoughtless people think we win by doing something else altogether; some call it appeasement, others call it surrender; no doubt you find these terms objectionable no matter their truth.